Why Obama Worries Iran

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad surprised the world again by claiming that Iran now possesses 6,000 uranium enriching centrifuges. The surprising part of his message was that the previous report produced by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which was produced in November 2007, stated that Iran possesses somewhere between 3,000 to 3,500 centrifuges. So the question is: how did Iran manage to double its capacity in such a short time?

It is possible that Iran has mastered enough technical knowledge to make such a noticeable leap, even though some western specialists doubt this. The other possibility is that Iran has secretly been producing centrifuges elsewhere, away from the eyes of the IAEA, and has now decided to declare their existence.

One also must not rule out the small possibility that Iran may be preparing to accept the recent “freeze” which the EU incentives package has requested, and as part of this, Ahmadinejad has decided to push the number of centrifuges to a high figure, thus making it more difficult to scale back as part of any future deal.

Whatever the case may be, the fact remains that Ahmadinejad seems to need to use the nuclear program more and more to boost his standing at home.

One important factor behind this is Iran’s genuine worry about Barack Obama’s rising profile worldwide.

Until now, Tehran has been exploiting President Bush’s relative unpopularity in the international scene to its advantage. As far as Iranian strategists are concerned, the US will not invade Iran as it did Iraq. Therefore it only has one real option: to push for tough internationally backed economic sanctions.

President Bush has not been very successful in his effort to get the international community to do this. But Obama is turning out to be different. If he can pull tens of thousands of Germans out of their homes to welcome him in Berlin, there is more of a chance that he could get their government to support his message to Tehran to “take U.S. engagement seriously.”

Things could get worse, not better for Iran if a popular President Obama does decide to negotiate directly with Ayatollah Khamenei’s administration. In such a scenario, it will be more difficult for Tehran not to compromise. Failure to do so will make it much easier for Obama to gather international consensus (perhaps including the support of Russia and China) for tough economic sanctions — something which Tehran is concerned about.

There is also the question of Iraq. The last thing Tehran wants is for the US to leave Iraq, at least anytime in the next five years. Obama first said that if elected he would withdraw US forces within 16 months. Then he said he would revise this figure. Despite his shifting position, Iranians see Obama as someone who is serious about ending America’s presence in Iraq, certainly in the next two to three years.

Should he do that, Tehran could be left with two possible scenarios, both of which spell trouble for them.

One is that the US leaves Iraq without solving its security problems. This could spell disaster for Tehran, as al-Qaeda is likely to turn its guns on Iran instead. The other possibility is that the US leaves Iraq as a stable country, both in terms of security and politics. This could be equally bad for Iran. A strong Iraq, even one in which Shiites are in charge, is not in Iran’s interests either as Shiites there could be placed under pressure to severe their ties with Iran as means of showing their allegiance. And if the ruling Shiites refused to do so, the Kurds and the Sunnis could very well start destabilizing the government in Baghdad, thus producing a Lebanon right on Iran’s doorstep.

Worst of all, a strong stable Iraq may start competing with Iran, as part of the historical rivalry between two, dating back to 2,500 years ago where Babylon (Iraq) competed with Persia.

These are tough days for Iran’s conservatives. The West has called their bluff by offering to negotiate with them. This has not left them with much room to maneuver. What’s worse is that this is having a negative effect on oil price.

What some Western politicians refuse to understand is that Iran’s clergy view strong economic sanctions as even more detrimental to their stability than war.

Therefore, serious rethinking is required by Iran’s conservative strategists. Many people, including Iranians, believe that the conservatives are overstepping.

The EU, after all, is not asking Iran to dismantle its nuclear program — it is asking for a six-week freeze to allow for negotiations. That’s not too much to ask.

Should Ahmedinejad and co. decide to readjust the country’s foreign policies to accommodate the realities of what is happening in the international arena, then they may have a good chance of maintaining Iran’s strong position, especially in the Middle East.

But if they stick with their unrealistic ideological beliefs, they could run the risk of seeing a weaker Iran. Even worse — as far as they are concerned — they could lose their hard-earned domestic political power. Washington is watching them closely, but their supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei is scrutinizing them even more closely. And he doesn’t take non-performance lightly.

35 Comments, 35 Threads

1.
misanthropicus

I don’t think that Teheran goes for such subtleties in the current confrontation with America. Teheran is sure watching the US presidential campaign, yet an eventual Obama presidency would rather make Iran more confident than less.

“There’s a connection between Ahmedinejad’s recent bragging about its enhanced nuclear capacity and Obama’s world tour.”

and

“If he (Obama) can pull tens of thousands Germans out of their homes to welcome him in Berlin, there is more of a chance that he could get their government to support his message to Tehran to ‘take U.S. engagement seriously’.”

From my perspective, the only true “danger” Iran perceives in a potential “President Obama” would be that this “Prez” would inadvertantly-yet-openly reveal his own indifference (“just a small country” … “no threat”) to any terrorist dealings and developments too soon…which just might FINALLY spark a concerted reaction by Americans, before the Iranian regime had time to do its damage.

Like I said, this article is a fine piece of propaganda, but NO SALE, Meir, “sweetie.”

So because Obama can gather roughly 70-80,000 fawning and mostly curious Germans (yes, the “over 200,000″ is an Obama campaign/media myth!) to hear him speak, suddenly he is a “world class” statesman that can negotiate directly with Iran, bring in here-to-for unqualified support from European leaders (because, gosh…look at all the people who he spoke to!), PLUS, perhaps even bring Russia and China to back tougher economic sanctions…all because of what???…His pseudo-popularity with European hoi-poloi??

Sorry, I’m not buyin’ it! Methinks you may have been sippin’ at the Kool-Aid a bit lately…!

Look, even if Obama DOES win the Presidency (which I have serious doubts he will) it will not be with any large mandate…it will be a close, squeeker of a win…hardly a position of strength to force his “will” (like the man is a proven leader yet!) on the Europeans, Russians, Chinese, much less the Iranians.

The other point I disagree with is that, even if a President Obama does begin pulling tropps out of Iraq, that he will allow Al-Qaeda to reform in a position of strength again in Iraq to threaten Iran.
You obviously place very little confidence in the government troops of Iraq to police their own country, but they are actually doing a pretty good job in many areas of the country now…and I doubt Al-Qaeda would EVER be able to form a strong enough and permanent enough presense in Iraq to threaten Iran, but we won’t leave a vacuum, regardless.

So again…I’m not buyin’ that either. In fact, I have my doubts that Iran is all that “worried” about us pulling out soon AT ALL! They STILL have the ability and the connections to influence events in Iraq to their liking…so our absence would only make it all the more EASIER to do that! Why is that so hard to fathom? Al-Qaeda is only a blip on their radar…they have much bigger problems at home and with the international community than to be concerned with Al-Qaeda…who, if they wanted to, they could just as easily manipulate with promises of weapons or safe havens.

Try as you did, I think Iran would be much more worried about a McCain Presidency. Obama is a proven waffler and still an amateur on the field of foreign policy and international relations. His past positions (which he has “sort-of” flipped on…but then I haven’t been “listening”!) would have left us with a FAR more dangerous world, with a few far more dangerous players still in place!

Simply put…Obama is the second coming of Jimmy Carter…and we all know how much Iran feared Carter during that hostage crisis…..

What a bunch of BS. I also notice the way he twists the facts and tries to depict the diplomatic farce as being something Bush is pushing on the allies, rather than the other way around. These idiotic maneuvers were forced on America because of our coward “allies” in Europe. Those coward allies have squandered the big stick we would have had against the Persian Nazis, and now Mr. Javedanfars, spewing his Iranian propaganda, suggests these disastrous negotiations are OUR tactic? More BS.

Mr. Javedanfar’s “analysis” looks more like Iranian propaganda designed to muddle, confuse, and steadily misdirect infidel attentions. Anything to avoid a military strike on your cherished regime in Iran, huh, Mr Javedanfar?

The idea of Obama’s charismatic transnational personality transforming European attitudes towards America, and further thus changing their policies against Iran is, well, a long stretch. Europe dislikes America for reasons other than Bush – the polls show the dislike started growing rapidly in the mid ’90s. At that time, transnational Clinton was in, saving Europe’s bacon in the Balkans.

As for Iran, these ancient players of Chess may be being subtle or they may not.

As Hitler taught us (and everyone reminds us too much, including me), it is prudent to take the words of an armed tyrant at face value! Several top Iranians leaders have promised or suggested the advisability of the destruction of Israel. #2 Ayatollah Rafsanjani gave theological justification for it.

If they mean it, then neither diplomacy nor sanctions will change their mind. Even if they don’t, a nuclear armed terrorist-sponsoring Iran in the heart of the world’s petroleum will be very dangerous.

But let’s try the chess analogy (sorta). Part of their nuclear work is a pawn sacrifice. Take it (attack) an you strengthen your enemies defense (reduce anti-regime sentiment in Iran). Leave it alone and it becomes a dangerous offense (it threatens the region with nuclear weapons).

In either case, it helps to have a fish (novice – Obama) to play against, rather than another master (McCain).

I thought Obama was to be portrayed as the jihadists’ candidate here? I have doubts about him, but he has taken the approveed stand towards Iran. But the paranoid red baiters are busy twisting him into the Manchurian Muslim candidate.

I don’t think Russia and China oppose us because they don’t like Bush. The oppose us because our interests do not align with theirs.

Unless you are saying that you think Obama will run the country in a way more beneficial to the Russians and the Chinese and less to US citizens, I don’t see that your argument holds much water. If that IS what you’re saying, it’s the best reason I’ve heard yet to vote for McCain.

“As far as Iranian strategists are concerned, the US will not invade Iran as it did Iraq.”

No, what they will do is turn most of Iran into a sea of rubble. Then bounce the rubble.
The US Air Force has a past record of success at bombing nations back into the stone age. If the nation is already in the stone age, like Afghanistan, then it’s not a big deal. If the nation, Like Iran, is a blend of late Iron age/ early industrial age, then being bombed back to the stone age hurts. As we say in the USA “That will leave a mark”.
No electricity because there are holes and rubble were the power statons used to be. No bridges. No train station because there are no trains. No where for them to go anyway after the USAF closed the train tunnels by turning them into rubble.
We will bomb and bomb. Police stations, army barracks, air ports, outhouses, what ever. If recon shows two bricks stuck together, JADAM them. The Iranian people will get tired of it before the USAF runs out of bombs. When the UAV’s bring back video of Mullahs hanging from trees by their neck, then we will stop.
As the British say; “There is fuk-all you can do about it.” No way you can stop us. Iran is a miserable little mud hole with an adverse Mullah to mud ratio.
It just took a couple of weeks for the Serbs to figure it out. Over a decade later, they have almost rebuilt everything the USAF turned to rubble. Almost.
Are the Persians any smarter? Stay tuned

John Samford,
Wishful thinking (not to mention advocating war crimes).

Bombing tends to cause people in a country to forget their differences in the face of a common enemy. We need to stop Iran from getting nukes, but bombing them back to the stone age would be stupid, not to mention immoral and illegal. Attacks aimed at military and regime targets are most likely to slow the nuclear program. But any attack will reduce the ability of anti-regime activists.

Furthermore, Iran is hardly little. It has more people and much more land than France. I suspect that’s a major reason we invaded Iraq instead of Iran.

John Samford,
“Wishful thinking (not to mention advocating war crimes).

but bombing them back to the stone age would be stupid, not to mention immoral and illegal.”

Evidence please! Bombing IS NOT a WAR CRIME.
Show me the statue. Show me the treaty that the USA is party to that says bombing is illegal.
You can’t because there is no such thing. Maybe in your mind, but I’m talking the real world, NOT planet Obama.
Bombing certain types of building violates the GCIV, UNLESS IT IS A MILITARY NECESSITY.

There is the URL to the GCIV. Note that the USA is NOT a party to the ’79 version (GCV). It was not ratified by Congress nor signed by the President. So it doesn’t apply to the USA. A lot of Europeans don’t understand that.
The USA isn’t a party to the Rome treaty either. As a sovereign nation, the USA cannot be forced to follow a treaty it isn’t a party to.
So there is nothing illegal about making war on Iran. Period.
US Legislation gives the President 60 days to conduct military operation before the administration has to make a report. Then Congress has 30 days to respond to that report and either authorize the military action or ASK that the combat stop.
None of that has been tested in court yet, so it is pretty much unknown what would really happen.
I suspect that President Bush would time it so that Congress would have to explain to the voters why they wanted Iran to have nuclear weapons (you got some ‘splainen to do Lucy). Then after the voters tossed them out on their fat theivin’ backsides, the military action would go on.
If not, a civil war isn’t beyond the realm of possibility. That would get the troops home.

There is huge disconnect between the bi-coastals and fly over America. Two different countries actually. When is the last time your air raid siren went off? If it gets down to shootin, Fly over America will win. We grow ALL your food.
If you think this is impossible, fire up the way back machine for a short hop back to November of 2000, when algore tried to steal the Presidency.
Remember when a bunch of Democrats were counting chads and some citizens were looking over their shoulder to make sure the count was ‘right’. The head Democrat asked them to leave and they said ‘no’. Then he asked the cop standing there to make them leave and he said “‘ell no”. There is a message there is you choose to decipher it. America was within minutes of having a civil war in 2000. Another Diebold election or any more fun and games out of the dems and there will be an explosion. If the left wants to ignore the rules, then the right will also.

Thei Meir guy is either working for the Iranian Republic of Islamic Terror, or getting paid by them –

He is advocating European lapdog mullahs like Khatami and Rafsanjani to maintain Islamic Republic of Turds in Tehran. Meir hates Ahamdinejad not because he hates the regime, he just wants his Euro-mullahs to come back to power in Tehran.

Why is Pajams allowing this Euro-agents write this BS here is beyond me.

It is amazing to me, that in this day and age someone would think another person a ‘coward’ because they would try to negotiate, and if need be, use war as a last resort…..come on people, even little boys don’t play cops and robbers, or cowboys and indians like they use to WHY?? because we have evloved ( I thought ) as a society, and as ‘the human race’ we know so much more as time goes on, that is one of the reasons young boys are not playing WITH GUNS,like they used to. Now we try and teach such smallones, that guns, and violence dont get you any where, respect and communication are encouraged!! SHAME ON THE BLOGGER FOR THINKING OBAMA is coward. NO, he just isn’t wanting to bang bang shoot ‘em up like you fool!

The Iranian method of negotiation has no weakness. The style is obdurate. It is a stubborn refusal to mover from one’s own starting position, while focusing attention on the other party’s position until they weaken and move.

The western style is to need to GET somewhere, by the deadline for tomorrow’s news, and for libtards the only way to get what they need fast enough for their own political requirements is to buy it at the cost of other people’s money, other people’s freedom and other people’s lives.

Oh good lord. Mr. Meir, have you learned nothing during the time that these people have been in power in Iran? (Shakes head, removes respect formerly given.) My 15 year-old daughter could counter every posit made in this piece.

Hi rotwang: Al Qaeda is a sworn enemy of Iran too, and has threatened the government there before. In fact, it is suspected of launching an attack inside Iranian territory on at least one occasion. See analysis belowhttp://www.meepas.com/Iran_Al_Qaeda_dilemma.htm

John Samford,
You sir are an ugly American. You call for the murder of millions of civilians? The Iranians might not be our friends but most of them are innocent civilians trapped in their environment. Thank heaven we didn’t bomb Eastern European civilians back to the stone age after WWII to punish their communist masters. I hope no one cries at your funeral, no one with half a brain or a sense of morality and humanity at least.

“John Samford,
You sir are an ugly American. You call for the murder of millions of civilians? The Iranians might not be our friends but most of them are innocent civilians trapped in their environment. Thank heaven we didn’t bomb Eastern European civilians back to the stone age after WWII to punish their communist masters. I hope no one cries at your funeral, no one with half a brain or a sense of morality and humanity at least.”

Great speech. Never mind the ad-hominem that your type of arguments seem to require. But tell this idiotic speech to the burqa clad walking bomb you’ll be meeting if we don’t use force against Iran. Of course said iranian walking bomb considers it immoral for you to look into your eyes, blowing herself up killing you and maiming your wife and children for life, however, that is the most moral act any muslim could ever commit.

At some point, it will no longer matter how many innocent Iranians there are. At some point we won’t have a choice. It did not matter how many innocent people there were in Dresden. It won’t matter how many there are in Teheran.

Let’s give this a constructive answer : anyone who does not actively oppose evil, by acts, not words, cannot be considered innocent. Innosense is limited to resistance fighters in Iran. Nobody else can claim it. Neither can western “no war with Iran” “intellectuals” claim innosense.

Cheering on while someone else is massacring your enemies is NOT innocent. You sir, are not innocent, but aiding and abetting genocide. There will be many more, much more innocent, civilians dead if we DON’T attack Iran.

Thank you get real. If you would just work on your reading skills.
Quote where I called for the murder of millions of civilians. You can’t because I didn’t. I advocate solving the issue thru diplomacy, THEN if that doesn’t work, bomb ‘em back to the stone age.
If you see bombing them back to the stone age as killing millions, then that is your problem. It is the result of your sick, twisted mind projecting your desires into what I wrote, which is something entirely different.

The actual solution is simple, requiring only that the problem be looked at from a different perspective. Iran is a sovereign nation, as such building nuclear weapons is their right. IF they do it themselves without outside help. That is what Israel, India and Pakistan did.
What Iran did was join the NPT, which is a diplomatic agreement that is intended to allow mudhole nations to gain the benefits of nuclear power without building any bombs. Part of the NPT is an agreement to allow the UN (IAEA) access to the Iranian nuclear facilities built with Western technology and aid. Iran has breached that treaty.
It makes no sense to work out a new treaty with a nation that won’t adhere to the old one.
So the issue isn’t Iran building nukes, it’s breaching the NPT to do so.
To solution is for the USA to withdraw from the NPT. The NPT prohibits any party from selling nuclear weapons to a non-nuclear state. Once the USA withdraws from that treay, we can sell nukes to whomever we want to. I think there is a 3 month lag time between giving notice and the actual moment of withdrawal.
Withdrawal with give the USA control of the negotiation process. If China and Russia don’t get on board with sanctions against Iran, then we sell their enemies nukes.
LOTS of nukes, the USA at the peak of the cold war had over 22,000 nuclear weapons. While the weapons were destroyed, the part that goes boooom was not. It’s called a’pit’ and the USA still has over 20,000 of them in storage. The ‘pit’ is the hard part of a nuclear weapon to make. Those pits can be turned into weapons at the rate of a dozen or so per week, unless it was an emergency, in which case after few months or so for training and building new assembly rooms, we could build hundreds per week.

No funeral for me. I get cremated and dropped over the side of the USS Kearsarge. It’s a done deal, all I have to do is die, which won’t be long now.
Since I most likely exceeded your reading skills, let me repeat in a more simplified manner.
Sell Nuclear weapons to Iran’s enemies if they don’t live up to their treaty requirements. Sell nuclear weapons to Russia’s enemies if they don’t live up to their treaty requirements. Ditto for China. Russia and China are BOTH in breach of article 1 of the NPT. After this last gasp diplomacy fails, THEN we bomb them back to the stone age.
What we should NEVER do is sign a treaty with a known treaty breaker. It’s just tooooooo stooooopid for words. Only the liberals at the Department of State could think that is a good idea.

Mr Javedanfar – thank you for responding. It’s heartening to know you don’t seem 100% averse to a military attack. But I suggest that the Islam has not shown sufficient signs over the course of time that the ideology of Jihad is ultimately negotiable. This is true about that Sunni branch as exemplified by Al Qaida and their evil twin the Saudis, and it’s true about the Shiite branch as exemplified by Iran and Hezb’Allah.

I know a poisonous creed when I see one, I know a cancerous tumor that needs removing, and Islam is such a one. You and your fellow Iranian expats are hostages of Islam, as are many Muslims within Islam itself. That is a great human tragedy, but the mind-shackles of Islam make it nearly impossible to get good advice from those who still remain Islam’s hostages.

It’s high time we begin taking our own counsel viz. the Islamic menace. For two long we have turned our ear to the clouded voices of frightened hostages who still retain too much of the mind-shackles of Islam to speak about what measures must be taken to win.

I know that if we wish to survive Islam’s greatest push to conquer earth since Jihad’s birth, that we must not negotiate our way into accommodation, but take genuine steps to see the ideology of Jihad annihilated. It’s what is required when dealing with genocidal muderous ideologies bent on world dominion. Think Nazi. Think Japanese Imperium. Two other genocidal strands which required neutralization. And they didn’t have nukes, and didn’t number more than a billion, and hadn’t been allowed into the West in their millions to run amok as Muslims and their apologists are clearly doing today.

One of the few things that President Bush has done that could be held up as an example of dealing with untrustworthy “leaders” is his total ignoring of Arafat, for years. Arafat was corrupt (millions in aid diverted to his accounts while his people lived in squallor), a profligate lier (said one thing in english, and another in Arabic – the same day) and known to be directly responcible for murder of Americans, in 1973 at the Saudi Khartoom embassy take over. Obviously negotiating with such an adversary is pointless, except for the photo op.

The Iranians and North Koreans are similarly untrustworthy negotiating partners. They are more akin to extortionists.

To think, given the last 20 years of experience, that anyone should negotiate with either Iran or the North Koreans is an excellent example of the “triumph of hope over experience”. The recent progress with North Korea, is an illusion or temporary, to slow their starvation, and help Bush look a little better, nothing more. If you think otherwise, you should consider the possibility that you are incapable of following evidence to a logical conclusion.

Negotiating with Iran, that is corrupt domisticaly and the world’s biggest supporter of terrorism is an exercise in self delusion. Obama would be real good at that, particularly the photo opportunities. Under Obama we would have another “end of history” period, as under Clinton, ignoring mounting threats. He would give us the same agressive talk with the same limp wristed responses to acts of war, such as the first World Trade Center bombing, the attempted assisination of a former President in Kuwait in ’93 by Saddam, the bombing of our soldiers in ’96 in Saudi Arabia, by Iran, the ’98 bombing of 2 embassies in Africa by Bin Laden.

Obama would be a one term disaster for our foreign policy, setting us up for nuclear terrorism.

This is a VERY strange article…VERY shallow. And as usual Mr. Javedanfar likes to make it sound like the Mullahs who are in fact gutting themselves with their wild inside fighting and who have nearly destroyed industry in Iran, etc. etc. etc. are winning.